February 15, 2005

Irreducible Complexity proven to evolve

One of the claims of the so-called intelligent design (ID) movement is that some aspects of life are “irreducibly complex”, and so could not have evolved. An example often given is the eye, because it contains many parts (lens, iris, retina, optic nerve), and it will not work if even one is missing. The claim is that the eye could not have evolved one step at a time, since all components have to exist for the eye to work. Since it is highly unlikely that all these different components evolved together in one step, ID proponents claim a designer must have been at work.

Of course, this argument has been debunked many times. For example, there are simpler versions of the eye on such animals as the flatworm. Clearly a primitive eye that could just tell the animal if it was in light or shadow, would be of benefit. This hasn’t stopped ID proponents and their “irreducibly complex” argument, though. And the argument, although flawed, was difficult to prove wrong. Until now.

An article in February’s Discover Magazinedescribes how Scientists at Michigan State University have been running an experiment where digital organisms have evolved into irreducibly complex forms. (You’ll need a subscription to read the whole article.) This is what they did. They set up bits of computer code, similar to computer viruses, as kinds of digital organisms. Each digital organism was set up so it could produce tens of thousands of copies of itself within minutes. But this is what makes it interesting: their instructions were set up so they could mutate in a similar way to how DNA mutates. A software program called Avida allowed the scientists to record the complete lifecycle of generations of the mutated digital organisms – the complete history of their actual evolution.

Physicist Chris Adami of Caltech, set out to manipulate the environment to see if the organisms could evolve the ability to do addition. He took the basic digital organisms and:

at regular intervals presented numbers to them. At first they could do nothing. But each time a digital organism replicated, there was a small chance that one of its command lines might mutate. On a rare occasion, these mutations allowed an organism to process one of the numbers in a simple way. An organism might acquire the ability simply to read a number, for example, and then produce an identical output.

Adami rewarded the digital organisms by speeding up the time it took them to reproduce. If an organism could read two numbers at once, he would speed up its reproduction even more. And if they could add the numbers, he would give them an even bigger reward. Within six months, Adami’s organisms were addition whizzes. “We were able to get them to evolve without fail,” he says. But when he stopped to look at exactly how the organisms were adding numbers, he was more surprised. “Some of the ways were obvious, but with others I’d say, ‘What the hell is happening?’ It seemed completely insane.”

Not only had they evolved the ability to do addition, they had evolved to be irreducibly complex. For example, for a digital organism to add two numbers together, it would have to read the numbers, hold them in memory, add them, and hold the sum in memory or read it out. If any of these steps was removed, addition wouldn’t happen. This is what ID proponents say is impossible to evolve.

The scientists then decided to see if they could evolve even more complex operations. They set up an experiment to evolve the operation known as “equals”, which:

consists of comparing pairs of binary numbers, bit by bit, and recording whether each pair of digits is the same. It’s a standard operation found in software, but it’s not a simple one. The shortest equals program Ofria could write is 19 lines long. The chances that random mutations alone could produce it are about one in a thousand trillion trillion.

The scientists set up the experiment so that the organisms would replicate for 16,000 generations, and then performed this experiment 50 times. Startlingly, the “equals” function, which has at least 19 irreducibly complex steps, evolved in 23 of the 50 experiments. And, in line with evolutionary theory, all 23 successful evolutions were done in completely different ways.

The researchers made their software freely available on the Internet, and allowed creationists to download it to test it for flaws. Despite this army of highly motivated bug testers, no major flaws have been found. So, now that these creationists have proved for themselves that irreducible complexity can evolve, do you think they will drop this silly objection to evolution? OK, rhetorical question.

I really recommend anyone to get hold of the magazine and read the full article. (Take out a subscription – it’s not that expensive.) It's fascinating: I’ve only scratched the surface of the story here.

I finally managed to read the article you referenced in this post. What I found to be even more interesting than the fact 23 out of 50 experiments evolved the equals behavior in the presence of unlimited resources was what happened when they introduced resource scarcity to the digital environment, or in other words when they introduced real world limits. When the experiments were run again, ALL runs evolved the equals operation, an average of 9 times as fast! That is amazing, and yet more proof that natural selection not only works, but it works well.

"what happened when they introduced resource scarcity to the digital environment, or in other words when they introduced real world limits. When the experiments were run again, ALL runs evolved the equals operation, an average of 9 times as fast! That is amazing, and yet more proof that natural selection not only works, but it works well."

I am surprised that no one sees the intelligents that went behind the digital organisms evolving the ability to add two numbers. An intelligent being decided which direction the evolution will take, the ability to add to numbers, how this would be accomplished, increase the reproduction rates of those that "evolve" in the direction the intelligents wanted it to go.

I do not think this is a convincing experiment for the evolution of irreducible complexity.

And of course you have chosen to focus on the irrelevant. The point of this article is to show that irreducible complexity can evolve. Since the base claim of ID is that irreducible complexity can not evolve, this is a rather devastating piece of data for ID proponents. It proves your basic premise is false.

"An intelligent being decided which direction the evolution will take, the ability to add to numbers, how this would be accomplished, increase the reproduction rates of those that "evolve" in the direction the intelligents wanted it to go."

Completely missing the point: The increased reproduction rate duplicates what nature does: Creatures with certain traits reproduce more. In this case, the environment of the simulation was one where certain steps in a program lead to increased reproduction. The artificiality of the environment is irrelevant: He didn't design the organisms. He just put them in a particular environment and they reacted the way evolution said they would.

Oh, and if you want to argue that the designer set up the environment the same way these experimenters did, well, you'll have to prove the Earth and all its geology and climate changes were designed, somehow.

"Rather than debunking ID this experiment only lends support to it. The experiment is “designed” to give those organisms that mutate in the way the “designer” wants a better chance of reproducing."

Black is white, up is down, and watch out for that zebra crossing. Again, how that environment was set up is irrelevant to the experiment. If the experiment was set up as a result of an accident, it'd have the same results. It simply doesn't matter how the environment was set up: It disproves the notion that irreducible complexity can't evolve.

All you're doing is backpedalling so that you're saying the environment is designed. Prove it.

Re: …through a directed effort of an intelligent source outside the environment of the organisms.

No, the intelligence did not “direct” the effort. The intelligence just set up the environment. And with no direction, irreducible complexity did evolve.

Re: Rather than debunking ID this experiment only lends support to it. The experiment is “designed” to give those organisms that mutate in the way the “designer” wants a better chance of reproducing.

Of course the experiment was designed. Are you insisting that if an experiment is designed it is invalid? By that criterion, no experiment would ever satisfy you. That is absurd – of course an experiment has to be designed.

You clearly either don’t understand this experiment or you don’t understand the scientific method. Scientific experiments are designed to try to falsify (prove wrong) a hypothesis. The reasons for this are too complex to go into here, but here is an article that explains falsifiability.

The basic premise of intelligent design is that irreducible complexity cannot evolve. Of course, none of the ID proponents have ever tried to test this experimentally, they just assert it. These scientists set out to falsify this basic ID premise, and it was falsified. Irreducible complexity can evolve, so ID is based on a false premise. And since that’s basically all they have, ID is pretty much falsified.

Re: The analogy that this experiment has to the real world is very limited or is it?

It’s not an analogy. It was an experiment to see if the premise “irreducible complexity cannot evolve” could be falsified. It was falsified.

Re: A better experiment needs to be devised.

OK, devise one then and detail it here for us. ID proponents are of course free to devise their own experiments, but the problem (one of them) with ID is that they don’t do experiments, don’t do science. But if you want to break with this tradition then go for it: more experiments are always good if they provide new data. But unless you can find an error with this experiment, then irreducible complexity can evolve. End of story.

Re: No, the intelligence did not “direct” the effort. The intelligence just set up the environment. And with no direction, irreducible complexity did evolve.

Adami rewarded the digital organisms by speeding up the time it took them to reproduce. If an organism could read two numbers at once, he would speed up its reproduction even more. And if they could add the numbers, he would give them an even bigger reward.

"But everyone needs to be aware that dogmatism has no place in true science."

Exactly. Which is why IDers need to move on, rather than continue to tout their now demonstrably false assertion that irreducible complexity can't evolve. They need to come up with a testable hypothesis and test it, rather than continue to shout and beg for political endorsement.

That is true, IDers should not try to force their ideas on the scientific community or the public at large, but let them stand on their own weight. However, It is only by questioning that progress is made and though we may not agree with them we should be open to look and question our own strongly held beliefs and convictions.

If your contention is that the universe was designed, then the burden of proof is upon you to do so. That is the way science works. So can you prove the universe was designed? Yes or no? Amd please show your work.

Re: Adami rewarded the digital organisms by speeding up the time it took them to reproduce. If an organism could read two numbers at once, he would speed up its reproduction even more. And if they could add the numbers, he would give them an even bigger reward.
This looks like “directing”.

It is setting up the environment. It is not directing the experiment. And with no direction, irreducible complexity did evolve.

You didn’t answer my earlier point. You said “A better experiment needs to be devised”, and I said, “OK, devise one then and detail it here for us”. Are you going to do that, or are you going to continue to do what all ID proponents do and just snipe about the evidence for evolution?

Adami rewarded the digital organisms by speeding up the time it took them to reproduce. If an organism could read two numbers at once, he would speed up its reproduction even more. And if they could add the numbers, he would give them an even bigger reward.
This looks like “directing”.

This is no different than, say, setting up a shadowy environment where black pigmentation is a benefit, or a wet environment where improved swimming is a benefit. The environment causes evolution, which can produce irreducibly complex traits. In this experiment, it doesn't matter that the environment is designed.

If you want to argue that the Earth was designed to produce human beings, you'll have to come up with a way to determine that the Earth was designed, as that's an unrelated claim to this experiment.

Just look at the diversity life around you and you would need no further proof that this was not due to some random chance of natural selection. The easy answer is: “Given enough time all things are possible”. Is this is really an answer? There is some other process at work in nature and I am looking for the answer to what that process is.

If you are truly on the fringe and looking for answers, you've come to the right place. If you are looking to confirm your faith, best look elsewhere.

I don't want to be a dick, but do you realize how silly Creationists sound when they say ...random chance of natural selection"? Pick one. "Selection" and "chance" are opposites. Statements like that show you do not understand evolution. Start here.

Just look at the diversity life around you and you would need no further proof that this was not due to some random chance of natural selection.

Not good enough. It's based on a false premise anyway. Again:

*Who is this designer? Is it God? Is it aliens? Invisible Pink Bunny Rabbits?

*How do you propose to prove who/what this designer is?

*How did the designer operate?

*What process was used? It is fact evolution occured, but there are many theories as to how.

*You will need to provide new evidence proving speciation and mutation occur independentlyfrom natural selection. We have proof, show our evidence is flawed.

Re: Just look at the diversity life around you and you would need no further proof that this was not due to some random chance of natural selection.

First, as others have said, natural selection is not random. Basic mistake of most creationists.

Second, even ignoring that – lame lame lame. It is just an argument from ignorance – life is so complex you don’t see how it could have arisen without some guiding hand. Well, just because you don’t see how it could have happened that way does not mean it did not happen that way. It is only evidence of your own ignorance and lack of imagination. If you want anyone to believe the universe was designed you are going to have to provide some evidence that the universe was designed. “Just look at the diversity life around you” does not even begin to be anything even remotely resembling evidence.

Re: The easy answer is: “Given enough time all things are possible”. Is this is really an answer?

No. But then no scientist actually says that. Your argument is a straw man.

Re: There is some other process at work in nature and I am looking for the answer to what that process is.

When you find it, try getting it published in a scientific journal. So far you have nothing.

Re: I propose doing it by getting scientist to think outside the box.

Sorry to rain on your parade but you are failing. And you will continue to fail if you rely on these same old lame creationist arguments that have been debunked many times before.

Irreducible complexity has been falsified, so you need to come up with something new. So far you’ve only rehashed the old and already discredited.

Re: Yes, but the mutations are random and these random mutations must occur just at the right time to make the organism better fit.

Don’t be stupid. Random mutations occur randomly – by definition. The ones that survive do so because the mutation makes it more likely that the genes are passed on. They don’t have to occur at “just at the right time” – if they occur at the “wrong” time they just don’t get passed on. You really need to learn a bit more about this subject.

Re: Just because it could have happened that way does not mean that it did.

Correct. We know it did because of the huge amounts of evidence for it. Now, stop playing semantic games and either provide evidence there is a designer, or shut up.

Re: Come on! Who would doubt that an Irreducible Complex system could be designed by an intelligent being; even if using only random bits of computer code?

One more time: Irreducible complexity WAS NOT DESIGNED. The equals function is an irreducibly complex function that EVOLVED. The ID stance that this could not evolve has been falsified. If you can’t grasp even these simple ideas you are never going to get very far.

Re: Take a better look! If we found Mt. Rushmore on Mars I do not think we would attribute it to erosion.

Well, looks like a lot of nothing has been happening here over the last few hours. Same loop. We falsify one of the big negative premises that IDers base their affirmative assumptions on, and he fails to see the point.

All this talk about designing the environment of the experiment reminds me of the alt-to-med nonsense distinction between "natural" and "artificial" chemicals, as if it were relevant to what they do. Water is water. Ricin is ricin. An environment that favors addition programs is an environment that favors addition programs. The results will be the same.

Natural Selection has no long term goal. Unlike the experimenter whose ultimate goal was to design an organism that could add two numbers, using random bits of computer code. He accomplished this goal by intervening in the environment at the right time to move the overall direction of population in the direction that he chose. This is certainly not undirected evolution without any final goal or purpose.

Re: “They set up an experiment to evolve the operation known as “equals’”

You do not go into detail about the environment that allowed the operation of “equals” to evolve. However, unlike evolution, which has no purpose, the evolution in this experiment had a purpose: “to evolve the operation known as ‘equals’.”

You, need to devise an experiment where the environment is free from any outside intervention. Let the program run its course and see if any Irreducible Complex systems "evolve" with no intelligent directing force. I will leave the details up to you.

Natural Selection has no long term goal. Unlike the experimenter whose ultimate goal was to design an organism that could add two numbers, using random bits of computer code. He accomplished this goal by intervening in the environment at the right time to move the overall direction of population in the direction that he chose. This is certainly not undirected evolution without any final goal or purpose.

Once again, missing the point: The experiment was designed to falsify the null hypothesis that irreducible complexity cannot evolve. The origin of the environment has no relevance.

You do not go into detail about the environment that allowed the operation of “equals” to evolve. However, unlike evolution, which has no purpose, the evolution in this experiment had a purpose: “to evolve the operation known as ‘equals’.”

The environment is one where the algorithms with the appropriate operations reproduce more. A simple, but generally accurate description of a physical world environment: Creatures with certain traits in certain environments reproduce more.

You, need to devise an experiment where the environment is free from any outside intervention. Let the program run its course and see if any Irreducible Complex systems "evolve" with no intelligent directing force. I will leave the details up to you.

There isn't an intelligent directing force in the experiment. Just an environment with a handful of simple rules, namely that certain operations increase reproduction race. Reality has such rules, for example, a fast-running deer will generally reproduce more than a slower one because they can evade predators more easily. The rule is there, and its source is irrelevant to this experiment.

I read the Article in Discover Magazine, and do say that the program is impressive. But it is hardly a death blow to ID. You can see from this program how hard it would be to see the designer in Nature if it is so hard to see it in such a simple program? However, if this program does what it purports to do, someone ingenious enough may from studying the evolution of these bugs learn how to detect the designer behind it all, man. From that point they maybe able to state a testable hypothesis to test whether or not there is a designer behind evolution. This program in the right hands could be what the IDers need to prove their case.

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

The equals function contains a minimum of 19 irreducibly complex steps – if any one is missing, the equals function will not work. And yet it did evolve. Therefore, the basic ID premise has been proven wrong. End of story.

ID proponents like Albert above will continue to willfully misunderstand this experiment, will continue their hand waving in the “just look at the diversity life around you” school, will continue to pretend evolution is “random” and will continue to pretend reasoning by analogy means anything. None of this will alter the fact that the basic premise of ID – irreducible complexity cannot evolve – has been proven FALSE. And without that, they have NOTHING.

Well even if I grant you that Irreducible Complexity can evolve then ID would need to look for another testable premise.

With all the “bug testers” out there can you tell me what the results evolution had on the bugs when the environment was randomly changed at random intervals and the rule governing the passing on of a good gene was randomly changed. What level of Irreducible Complexity did the bugs achieve and in what time? The bugs evolved quit rapidly in the desire direction when there was a fixed plan and purpose to it.

The article did say that the bugs could compete with each other, so what happened when the passing on of a good gene was fixed at: “those bugs that were best competitors at reproduction success” given the other conditions in my above post?

Re: Just look at the diversity life around you and you would need no further proof that this was not due to some random chance of natural selection.

I think the above statement perfectly represents ID for what it is, intellectual laziness. Scientists don't just make claims based on an observation and declare it to be true. The irony is that it was the diversity of life that inspired Darwin to doubt creationism.

The burden of proof lies on the claimant. Your claim, you test it. That's how science is done.

I'm glad you have a hypothesis. The next step is to experiment; to try to prove it false. No matter what the results submit your research for peer review. Let your results be confirmed by others. Don't go in assuming your hypothesis is correct, as it leads to bias. That's how science is done.

The Discovery Institute has plenty of resources and funding to conduct these experiments, maybe you should email them your hypothesis. Being the legitimate scientific trailblazers that they are, we will all expect to see the results published in a scientific journal. Accolades and Nobel Prizes will no doubt follow.

Albert said:
"The bugs themselves were not designed but the environment and the rules for increasing the reproduction rate were at least planned if not designed."

and then,
"My hypothesis is that the degree of complexities of the Irreducibly Complex systems will become static at a low level, in a randomly changing environment, given Natural Selection only."

...and then:
"It would prove the evolution of Irreducibly Complex systems, that we see in Nature, are not possible using Natural Selection as its only driving force."

Exactly how do you plan on conducting an experiment using only "Natural Selection as its only driving force", when you've already made it clear that you consider the Avida experiment flawed because the environment was designed? How would you have a "randomly changing environment" if those changes aren't designed into the environment? Wouldn't the environment be a constant if natural selection was it's only "driving force"? How is the environmental design needed to conduct your experiment any less biased then Avida's?
Of course, the experiment would have to be conducted in an artificial environment, there is no way around that, unless you happen to have 200 million years spare time.

Also, please elaborate as to why it would prove that natural selection could not form complex systems.

Nitpick: Natural selection by itself can't cause evolution. You have to have some source of new traits, like mutation.

Even if Albert's hypothesis is correct, it still does not prove ID to be true.

Which is one of my big beefs with ID: Even if their premises were true (which they aren't), the logic doesn't follow: Even if we didn't know how irreducibly complex traits show up, there's no reason to assume a designer: It could be some unintelligent phenomenon we simply never thought of.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence.

I'm reminded of one bizarre set of "logic" lines used as an example in a logical fallacy entry (I forget where):

5 is even and odd.
Therefore, God exists.

It's the same thing with IDers: The premise is clearly false, but even if it was true, it doesn't support their conclusion.

Re: Exactly how do you plan on conducting an experiment using only "Natural Selection as its only driving force", when you've already made it clear that you consider the Avida experiment flawed because the environment was designed?

The environment was controlled by the experimenter: make food abundant, make food scarce, increase production rate if bug evolves the way the experimenter wants it to, and vary the increase of reproduction rate on how quickly the bug has evolved the way the experimenter wanted. Except for the reproduction rate these parameters must be randomly varied and not controlled by the experimenter. The reproduction rate of a bug would depend on how well the bug competes with the other bugs for the resources. I do not know the full capabilities of Avida, so I can not say whether this experiment could be performed using it. However, if the hypothesis is not found false in this designed environment I do not believe that it would be found false in nature.

Albert and the rest of the ID supporters are stuck in a "false dilemma" fallacy. They are certain that by proving Evolution wrong (which, by the way, they haven't even started to do) that "Intelligent Design" will be the "default" hypothesis. Wrong!

Even if Evolution could be shown to be wrong, "Intelligent Design" would not become the reigning "theory of life" for the simple reason that it has no data to support it.

All the ID'ers have is a handful of readily refutable "controversies" about evolution. They don't have data - heck, they don't even have a testable hypothesis.

If Albert or any of the IDiots can formulate - even in rudimentary terms - how one could test any of the claims ID makes, I would not only be eternally grateful, I would be flat-out amazed!

So, even if the IDiots manage - by some unforseeable freak of fate - to "unseat" Evolution, they still have to show that their "theory" is valid - or even testable.

Re: ID is not necessary wrong because a premise may be wrong. There may another provable premise supporting their Theory.

Albert, you have things back-to-front. A premise, if it tests out, can lead to a conclusion. You appear to have started with your conclusion (intelligent design), and are working backwards to find a premise. Your method is one of the key features of pseudoscience.

If the hypothesis stated above can not be found false using Avida then the environment could be manipulated to see if, for example, by cycling the environment the evolution of the bugs could be moved into a higher order of Irreducible Complexity. Assuming of course that Irreducibly Complex systems occur in the first place.

Irreducibly Complex systems can not evolve without an Intelligent Designer.

Given the digital world and primitive bugs sprang into existence, the Michigan State University experiment does not disprove this hypothesis. Each major step in the “Addition Whizzes’” evolution was planned by the experimenter, “Intelligent Designer”.

How the irreducibly complex equals function evolved I am not sure. However, if the evolution was based on pleasing the Experimenter, as it passed through major evolutionary steps, it too does not disprove this hypothesis.

Irreducibly Complex systems can not evolve without an Intelligent Designer.

Negative hypothesis. Impossible to prove.

[T]he Michigan State University experiment does not disprove this hypothesis. Each major step in the “Addition Whizzes’” evolution was planned by the experimenter, “Intelligent Designer”.

Wrong. They weren't planned. They were predicted.

How the irreducibly complex equals function evolved I am not sure. However, if the evolution was based on pleasing the Experimenter, as it passed through major evolutionary steps, it too does not disprove this hypothesis.

Wrong. The evolution was based on this simple thing: If something has traits X, Y, or Z, it reproduces more.

The only traits favored and passed on were those the Experimenter, Intelligent Designer, wanted to.

If he didn't assign favored traits, the experiment wouldn't have anything simulating natural selection. Of course, the fact that he assigned traits is irrelevant to the validity of the experiment. If the same traits were chosen randomly, the results would have been the same. A=A.

I sense a possible cheat involved if we took a few million years to observe actual evolution of irreducibly complex traits: You'd simply say that the designer wanted those irreducibly complex traits. You're just backpedalling to the environment to render ID unfalsifiable.

The traits assigned by the experimenter were designed to give an end result.

Wrong. They weren't assigned to give an end result. They were assigned, and a result was predicted. The predictions happened to be correct.

Is that how Nature assigns traits?

Irrelevant. Some traits are beneficial for reproduction in certain environments, some aren't. It doesn't matter how those rules were set up. Same with the experiment. The end result is that irreducible complexity can evolve.

Re: Wrong. They weren't assigned to give an end result. They were assigned, and result was predicted. The predictions happened to be correct.

Are you saying that Adami did not want bugs that could add two numbers?

“On a rare occasion, these mutations allowed an organism to process one of the numbers in a simple way. An organism might acquire the ability simply to read a number, for example, and then produce an identical output.
Adami rewarded the digital organisms by speeding up the time it took them to reproduce. If an organism could read two numbers at once, he would speed up its reproduction even more. And if they could add the numbers, he would give them an even bigger reward. “

What criteria did Adami use in deciding to give the bug an award? Was it because it was the fittest for the environment? No! It was the one that pleased Adami by doing what he wanted it to do. If you take Adami out of the environment the system will go no where.

Are you saying that Adami did not want bugs that could add two numbers?

No, I'm not. What Adami wants is irrelevant. They would have evolved under those conditions, regardless of what he wanted.

What criteria did Adami use in deciding to give the bug an award? Was it because it was the fittest for the environment? No! It was the one that pleased Adami by doing what he wanted it to do. If you take Adami out of the environment the system will go no where.

He's playing the role of the environment by setting up that rule. If there was no rule, there'd be no evolution. The source of the rule is irrelevent to the experiment.

Re: He's playing the role of the environment by setting up that rule. If there was no rule, there'd be no evolution. The source of the rule is irrelevent to the experiment.

He can not play the role of the environment because he is not unbiased in how he chooses the role. Nature is blind it only picks those individuals that are best fit for the present environment, not how their offspring may turn out ten generations from now. Remember the new hypothesis we are testing says “Irreducible Complex Systems can not evolve without an Intelligent Designer”. This experiment does not prove this hypothesis false.

He can not play the role of the environment because he is not unbiased in how he chooses the role.

Missing the point: He set up a rule and stuck with it.

Nature is blind it only picks those individuals that are best fit for the present environment, not how their offspring may turn out ten generations from now.

Which is how he ran the experiment: If a certain trait showed up, it was rewarded.

Remember the new hypothesis we are testing says “Irreducible Complex Systems can not evolve without an Intelligent Designer”. This experiment does not prove this hypothesis false.

The hypothesis he was testing was that irreducible complexity can evolve. They evolved using the mechanisms of mutation and selection. The fact that they evolved irreducibly complex traits as a result of those mechanisms proves that irreducible complexity can evolve. It doesn't matter if the selection rules were set up by an intelligence.

I said if the experiment proved their original hypothesis to be True, it did not prove the hypothesis: “Irreducible Complex Systems can not evolve without an Intelligent Designer” as False.

You just aren't getting it, aren't you? The environmental rules could have just as easily been chosen randomly. The intelligence of Adami is irrelevent to this experiment. He may have designed the environment (but only because we don't want to wait around for millions of years), but he didn't design the irreducibly complex programs that resulted. He predicted they would show up, based on the rules he set at the beginning of the experiment.

Re: He may have designed the environment (but only because we don't want to wait around for millions of years), but he didn't design the irreducibly complex programs that resulted.

You are making a leap of faith in assuming that if he did not design the environment that given ENOUGH TIME irreducibly complex programs will eventually result. Its irrelevant whether the environment was designed or the programs were designed there was still a designer.

I said if the experiment proved their original hypothesis to be True, it did not prove the hypothesis: “Irreducible Complex Systems can not evolve without an Intelligent Designer” as False.

Albert, don’t be ridiculous, that is exactly what it proved. An irreducibly complex system – the equals function – EVOLVED. The humans running the experiment did not intervene in the evolution of the programs – PERIOD. No amount of semantic games from you will alter that. The premise of ID has been proven wrong.

You are getting tiresome – read the article again with the aim of understanding it. If you refuse to understand the basic details of the experiment then there is little anyone here can say to help you.

You are making a leap of faith in assuming that if he did not design the environment that given ENOUGH TIME irreducibly complex programs will eventually result. Its irrelevant whether the environment was designed or the programs were designed there was still a designer.

You're the one making the leap of faith: You're assuming that a designed rule set is somehow different than an otherwise identical random rule set.

And, of course, you have yet to show me the relevance of the origin of the experiment's environmental rules.

Re: The humans running the experiment did not intervene in the evolution of the programs – PERIOD.

What do you call rewarding the bugs when they do what the experimenter wanted; if not intervening?

If you are talking about the code having the ability to mutate in a way that would allow it to remember numbers, then eventually add them together; than again you are looking at how the primitive bug, code, was designed to begin with. It had to of had the potential from the beginning to mute in the right direction that the experimenter wanted. Where did it get this potential?

RE: You're the one making the leap of faith: You're assuming that a designed rule set is somehow different than an otherwise identical random rule set.

We are talking about the probability of that designed rule set randomly occuring. The ultimate answer is: give it MORE TIME. Is there enough time even in the universe?

What do you call rewarding the bugs when they do what the experimenter wanted; if not intervening?

You REALLY have no idea how this experiment or evolution works, do you? Evolution works by selection. Selection is based on a system of events that we could call rewards and punishments. If a spider catches food, it's a reward, and results in the spider more likely living to reproduce. If the spider builds a web, it gets more food and an even better chance at reproducing. Following me so far?

Rewarding a program for developing an adding function is a substitute for what nature does. Think of the desirable functions as hunting adaptations. If they have those functions, they reproduce more. It's that [frell]ing simple.

We are talking about the probability of that designed rule set randomly occuring.

No, we aren't.

The ultimate answer is: give it MORE TIME. Is there enough time even in the universe?

Why wait when we can make simulations that can go through millions of generations in a very short time?

Re: What do you call rewarding the bugs when they do what the experimenter wanted; if not intervening?

The bugs weren’t “rewarded”. When a random mutation made it more likely they would reproduce in the environment that existed, they were more likely to reproduce. Ie, they EVOLVED.

It is getting really tiresome explaining this to you again and again.

Re: If you are talking about the code having the ability to mutate in a way that would allow it to remember numbers, then eventually add them together; than again you are looking at how the primitive bug, code, was designed to begin with.

IRRELEVANT. Yes, their instructions were set up to mimic the way DNA mutates. So what? The point of the experiment was TO SEE IF THEY COULD EVOLVE IRRIDUCIBLY COMPLEX OPERATIONS. They did. What part of "they evolved irriducibly complex operations" don't you understand?

One point I'd REALLY like to get through to Albert: EVEN IF we couldn't get the evolution simulator to evolve irreducibly complex traits, it would not be a victory for ID. ID is inherently unsound, as it relies on affirmative conclusions made on negative premises, mostly in the form of argument from ignorance.

So, an unfalsifiable non-hypothesis based in bad logic built on false premises. ID isn't dead: It was never truly alive to begin with.

What criteria did Adami use in deciding to give the bug an award? Was it because it was the fittest for the environment? No! It was the one that pleased Adami by doing what he wanted it to do. If you take Adami out of the environment the system will go no where.

It seems Albert won't be around to respond anymore, but I was suddenly reminded of an old argument I had years ago:

About Divine Command Theory of morality: Someone was arguing that wisdom and morality were prerequisites to proscribing morality.

And, of course, Albert's thinking backwards. Or laterally. Or something: The "bugs" that were fittest for the environment were the ones that qualified for the reward. The reward system was the environment.

Computers don't do anything randomly. So what if a bunch of guys *programmed* a computer to do something. Computers don't evolve on their own, they are the product of evolutions of design. Software is the same, given that a program is ever modified after its first inception.

The best a computer can do to *simulate* a random occurrence is to use a random number generator which if you are familiar with computer programming (apparently not) is nothing even close to random. This is the only mechanism available to programmers to cause a program to deviate in result on successsive runs.

Also, before even arguing your basic point, you are claiming that design theorists thing that irreducible complexity evolves. That isn't even the basic premise. What they are saying is that evolution can't explain the small mutations that would be required to produce something even as basic as a set of amino acids forming into proteins, nevermind with ultra-complex portions of an organism like a human eye. They are saying that it would require evolution to take a series of giant steps with seemingly no reason to do so (in light of natural selection and survival), producing systems that are "irreducibly complex", meaning that all of the systems parts would have needed to evolve for each other at the same time.

The goal of ID isn't to debunk evolution, its merely to remove the restraints that evolution places on the scientific process. There are VERY BASIC QUESTIONS that evolution has failed to answer even over 150 years. It took Einstein a couple of years to produce the math to support his theory. 150 years is tantamount to Newton's theory of gravity (400 years actually) never being debunked because it required a radical change in thinking and intuition. Clearly there is evidence for evolution based on the end result but evolution is a *process* not a destination, and science has done nothing to prove it successfully. The question is probably a lot less related to debunking evolving life forms and more related to the concept that life has implied purpose and was therefore "front loaded" with design that was *intended* to evolve. They want to at least investigate that holding onto 19th century science in light of intellectual elitism is probably not in the best interest to science in general. Its about investigating the most basic organic systems looking for an answer. It is possible that ID could potentially prove "Darwinian evolution"; design theorists aren't afraid to learn this, evolution theorists are afraid they are wrong.

Re: Computers don't do anything randomly. So what if a bunch of guys *programmed* a computer to do something. Computers don't evolve on their own, they are the product of evolutions of design.

You are wrong - the programs evolved. I’m sorry you don’t understand that but your lack of understanding doesn’t make it false.

Re: Also, before even arguing your basic point, you are claiming that design theorists thing that irreducible complexity evolves. That isn't even the basic premise.

The premise of ID is that irreducible complexity cannot evolve. If you don’t know this you don’t even know the basics of what you are trying to defend.

Re: What they are saying is that evolution can't explain the small mutations that would be required to produce something even as basic as a set of amino acids forming into proteins,

I think here you are talking about abiogenesis not evolution. Either way it is just argument from incredulity - completely fallacious reasoning.

Re: The goal of ID isn't to debunk evolution, its merely to remove the restraints that evolution places on the scientific process.

What restraints would they be?

Re: They want to at least investigate that holding onto 19th century science in light of intellectual elitism is probably not in the best in terest to science in general.

Drivel. Evolution has progressed throughout the 20th century and continues to present new data. Unlike ID which is housed in the 4th millennium BC.

Re: Its about investigating the most basic organic systems looking for an answer. It is possible that ID could potentially prove "Darwinian evolution"; design theorists aren't afraid to learn this, evolution theorists are afraid they are wrong.

More drivel. ID is not about investigating anything looking for an answer, it is about saying we have no answer so it must be a designer (wink wink).

You need to go back and read what ID really is before you try to defend it any more.